James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 5 seconds to thank the gentleman from California for his enthusiasm and assure him that we will work for full funding. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Teague), a member of the committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have no more speakers. I will close on our side if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of time on our side. I appreciate the reflection of the gentleman from Arkansas about Mr. Hammersmith. He was one of the giants of this House, a truly distinguished person. He approached every issue thoughtfully, reflecting on the substance of the matters, never a tone of partisanship in his presentation in committee or on the floor. And a particularly touching experience for me was some years ago, Mr. Shuster was chair of the full committee, and we moved the first authorization of EDA in years. And as the bill was moving toward final passage on the floor, I got a message from the Republican cloakroom that Mr. Hammersmith was on the phone. So with trepidation in my heart, I marched into the Republican cloakroom and picked up the phone. And John Paul Hammersmith was on the other end of the line laughing. And he said, ``I have always wanted to get you over here in our cloakroom. Congratulations on passage of the bill.'' It was so typical of John Paul Hammersmith. He cared about the substance, and still does, of our work here, as does his successor, Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, this package of legislation is not a jobs bill, although it follows on the Economic Recovery Act, which provides funding for these projects for water, for sewer and sewage treatment facilities, and water infrastructure financing. This isn't a list of projects from the State of Minnesota. I have one here for wastewater infrastructure needs for the State of New York. There are thousands, thousands--6,900 such projects--by the various water infrastructure agencies across the Nation that are ready to go, ready to be built. Minnesota has prioritized these in the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority from 1 through 261 on wastewater projects. And the need is enormous. We have 12.5 million people out of work in the United States. Of that number, 2 million in the construction trades are out of work. And the unemployment rate of 8.1 percent nationwide for February is the highest in 25 years. By passing this legislation and putting to work the funding that the administration has indicated in its budget for the fiscal year that starts in October, we can make a serious dent in the unemployment numbers that I just cited, along with what will be accomplished with the roughly $5.6 billion in stimulus, half of which is in grant money and half of which is in loan funds. But we will create jobs in both packages, both this legislation and the stimulus need. As to Davis-Bacon, I will save my remarks for the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack). Suffice it to say that at a time of high unemployment, of desperate need across this country, an economy that needs people with income and ability to spend, to buy and to stimulate this economy, why would you tell folks, work for less? Why would you tell people, work for just at or below the minimum wage? Prevailing wage is not the union wage. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, said in a radio statement just the night before last, ``right now we need people working at union wages. We need people with money in their pocket to buy, to stimulate this economy.'' And with the stimulus package, we will be putting people to work, paying them for work, not paying them unemployment checks for not working. We will discuss that at more length. I now urge the passage of H.R. 1262.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The manager's amendment incorporates several important policy changes to the Clean Water Act, principally to promote transparency and accountability following on the committee's portion of the Economic Recovery Act, in which we require across the spectrum of our portion of the stimulus package openness, accountability reports every 30 days, the first of which will be received on April 3 by this committee from the whole range of Federal agencies and State agencies that are receiving recovery funds. We take that principle and incorporate those concepts of openness and accountability for the future of this program. A review of the types and categories of projects, the activities carried out under the State Revolving Fund, the jobs estimated to be created from the funds that States will use and cities will borrow from, we want to know the jobs created, the type of project, the category of projects, activities carried out, receive that information and make it public. We also provide additional criteria for States to determine affordability for wastewater infrastructure projects and activities, and tribal governments to be eligible for technical and management assistance for small, publicly owned sewerage agencies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his comments. The balance of the manager's amendment includes proposals that we folded in from Representatives Cardoza, Cleaver, Cuellar, Edwards of Maryland, Lujan, McCarthy of New York, Stupak and Mr. Teague, and I will not go into all the details, but I will include in the Record under general leave my complete statement covering those provisions. I ask support for the manager's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. It is always astonishing to me, over the going on 35 years that I have served in the House, on those few occasions when prevailing wage has become an issue of discussion on the House floor, it is characterized as ``job killing'' and ``union boss wages'' and other such, not that the gentleman from Florida used such language, but it has been used on other occasions. This is far from job killing. Good Lord, this was a provision signed into law by Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931, in response to an appeal from contractors who said that job-stealing contractors from other parts of the country were coming into New York on Long Island, where a federally funded hospital was being built, and undercutting their wages--and that was pretty hard to do in those days, because the wage was only about 25 cents an hour--and setting up tents on the property where the construction project was underway to undercut the local contractor who then appealed to the administration for help. Didn't get any, but the local Republican member of the House, Mr. Bacon, vigorously protested that practice. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Davis, left the administration, went back to Pennsylvania, was elected to the United States Senate, and in 1931 joined with Mr. Bacon, moved this legislation through the House and Senate, and Herbert Hoover signed it into law. It has not killed jobs in over 70-some years. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan, a member of the committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I yield myself the balance of the time. This is the kind of debate we should have, based on facts, based on reality in the workplace, the deeply felt views on issues, and it's why I insisted in committee and at the Rules Committee that the gentleman from Florida be allowed to offer this amendment in place and early on in consideration of this bill. It is appropriate to have this discussion. I have great respect for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who spoke earlier; we have worked together on a great many issues. He, too, speaks from the heart and from his experience on a range of business matters. And far be it from me to defend Herbert Hoover. But there are a few things in Hoover's repertoire that are worthy to note. He launched aviation security as Secretary of Commerce in 1926. He signed Davis-Bacon. He established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Not all of Hoover was bad, as he is associated with the Great Depression. The gentleman from Iowa has left the floor, but I couldn't help noting that the prevailing wage in Sioux City for iron workers, $20.95--that's not the union wage, that's prevailing wage. And for a truck driver, it is $18.25 in Sioux City, compared to a truck driver prevailing wage in Minnesota, in my district, in Lake County, $10.86. The prevailing wage varies all over the country, depending on what the local labor survey shows. This is not a national wage, this is not a negotiated wage; this is the best they do in that particular area in this particular skill. For the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack), a backhoe operator prevailing wage is $11.04. A backhoe operator in northeastern Minnesota gets $14.64. A backhoe operator in Mr. Mica's district gets $10.35. Union wage is about double that. These are not confiscatory wages--they are just barely staying ahead of the minimum wage. I know what it's like to work as a laborer. I worked on laborer jobs when I was going through college, carrying a hod of mud for a bricklayer, puddling concrete on a street-laying job, laying pipe for the sewage treatment plant in my hometown at $1.25 an hour. That was below the minimum wage because we didn't have a union contractor on the job. We ought to pay people a decent wage, a living wage. All we're asking for is the prevailing wage. And when the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member, said earlier, this is an expansion. Technically, yes, because the law expired. The Republican majority allowed this legislation, State Revolving Loan Fund, to expire. It was last authorized in 1994, and they allowed it to expire and it hasn't been authorized since then. So technically you can say, yeah, it is new, it's new legislation. We are just restoring what was. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. We accept the amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil). H.R. 1262 requires States to use at least 10 percent of their Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants for small and rural communities (communities that have populations of fewer than 10,000) to the extent that there are sufficient applications for assistance. The Markey-Kratovil amendment increases this percentage from 10 percent to 15 percent. This amendment addresses the reality that many States have small and rural communities that have demonstrated clean water needs. For instance, 19 percent of Colorado's total wastewater needs are made up of systems that serve small communities. Similarly, in Maryland, 12 percent of the total needs are for small communities. In my own state of Minnesota, the figure is a staggering 39 percent. Given the economic straits that currently grip the nation, it is increasingly difficult for small and rural communities to generate resources on their own to address their wastewater needs. This amendment provides the tools for small communities throughout the country to repair the wastewater infrastructure that we as a nation depend on for clean water. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentlewoman has brought to the committee and to the House a very, very important amendment. To establish a Federal task force, Federal agency task force, to develop recommendations for proper disposal of pharmaceuticals, to educate the public on the effect of those pharmaceuticals on the environment. The Fish and Wildlife Service has reported over a period of years the effect of estrogen on aquatic life, disrupting the condition of frogs and fish not only in inland waters but also in the Great Lakes waters. This is a critically important issue, and I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it forward and urge its adoption. We support the amendment on our side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). This amendment will move us forward in addressing a growing issue of concern in our nation's waterways--the presence of pharmaceuticals. Congresswoman Miller's amendment convenes a Federal agency task force to develop recommendations to properly dispose of unused pharmaceuticals, as well as to develop a strategy to educate the public on those recommendations. Every day, individuals and healthcare facilities improperly dispose of unused pharmaceuticals by pouring them into drains or flushing them down toilets. Presently, our wastewater treatment systems are either unable to properly treat many of these substances, or must expend large resources to capture some of them. As a result, pharmaceuticals are being detected throughout our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. In a series of recent studies, the United States Geological Survey has identified substances such as acetaminophen, caffeine, hormones such as estrogen, and steroids throughout water bodies. While present in very small quantities, the short- and long-term impacts of these substances on human and aquatic health are largely unknown. However, it only makes sense that changing the manner in which we dispose of these substances may well result in fewer pharmaceuticals in lower concentrations ending up in our nation's waters. The Federal task force that will be convened pursuant to Congresswoman Miller's amendment will provide recommendations that will help to limit the improper disposal of pharmaceuticals. I urge that my colleagues join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, there are no earmarks in this bill. There are no earmarks in the stimulus provisions that were part of the Recovery Act covering the State Revolving Loan Fund, because we specifically opposed using any individual designation for projects within the stimulus. The money appropriated for the State Revolving Loan Fund from 1987 on, and actually it started in 1981, there were no earmarks at that time. But we made it very clear in 1987 in our committee that these funds would go out by a statutory formula in section 205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The State of Arizona, for example, receives its statutorily defined share of .6831 percent. It's not an earmark. It's a statutorily determined amount that goes to the gentleman's State of Arizona, where the decisions are made by the counterpart agency, the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority, counterpart to our Minnesota Water Infrastructure Financing Authority. And every State has a similar such authority. I would further say, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman, that at no time in the history of the 22-year length of this program has there been any earmarking for any project. But if the gentleman wishes to offer this amendment, we are happy to accept it to make a further statement that we have confidence over the years of operation of this program that States rank their projects, that State agencies rank their projects, as in the State of Minnesota, 1 through 261, on a merit basis. They have a point system. Other States have something similar. There is no reason for Members of Congress to sigh that the executive branch isn't doing its job properly in allocating the funds authorized for their respective States. It's only where States aren't attending to the needs of Members that they come to the Appropriations Committee or to our committee and say, ``Oh, well, look, we are not being well served. Could you designate something?'' We don't do that in aviation, we don't do that in the clean water program, we don't do that in other programs. So I think the gentleman's amendment is quite appropriate here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just very briefly, and I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona taking a very principled stand on this issue of earmarks, but it's just, as a matter of historical note, there was a time when the Congress, the House and the Senate together worried about and raised questions about inappropriate spending by the Executive Branch. It was a Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Proxmire, who every Sunday night would issue his Golden Fleece Award to a government Executive Branch agency that was inappropriately using taxpayer dollars. And over time someone shifted it to take aim at the House or the Senate and shoot ourselves in the foot. This is not the point for a broader discussion of the matter of constituent-inspired initiatives in Federal legislation, but there will be another time when I will welcome the opportunity to discuss with the gentleman from Arizona the upcoming surface transportation bill and how these matters are managed in that context. I ask support of the amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). While I will not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, I think it is fair to point out that the gentleman's amendment, however well intentioned, does not fit well within the context of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (``Clean Water SRF''). Since its inception in 1987, funds from the Clean Water SRF are distributed directly to the States through a statutory formula--found in section 205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These funds--of which the State of Arizona receives a statutorily defined share of 0.6831 percent--are distributed directly to the gentleman's home state, where funding decisions on individual projects are determined by the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona. To the best of my knowledge, at no time during the 22-year history of this program, have funds been statutorily ``earmarked'' for a certain project, in any state. Nothing in H.R. 1262 would change that history. There is not a single earmark in this bill, and the Committee does not contemplate changing the process for distributing funding to the States via statutory formula. I understand that the gentleman is doggedly-focused on his concern about Congressional earmarks, but this is an amendment in search of a problem. Given the history of the Clean Water SRF, and the certainty that this amendment will have no impact on the traditional operation of the program, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona. I am hopeful that, unlike last year, our acceptance of the gentleman's amendment will make him more likely to support final passage of this vital investment in our nation's clean water infrastructure.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment authorizes the use of Clean Water Act section 122 grant funds for municipality-wide stormwater management planning, a very, very important initiative. We have discussed it many times in years past. If the gentleman had raised it in the course of our consideration of this legislation, we would have included it in the base of our bill, but our bill moved along much faster than most Members anticipated. He has presented it to the Rules Committee, it was made in order. We support the amendment on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis). This amendment authorizes the use of Clean Water Act section 122 grant funding for municipality-wide stormwater management planning. Congressman Polis' amendment will provide municipalities across the nation the means to evaluate, and then plan for, effective and comprehensive stormwater response strategies. Central to this amendment is the incorporation of ``green infrastructure'' technologies and approaches into a municipality's stormwater system Developing an effective response to stormwater should occur from a system-wide perspective. In too many instances today, municipalities try to address their stormwater needs on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis. This approach doesn't make sense from either a cost or effectiveness perspective. Providing funding for communities to do system-wide analysis and planning will result in the placement of the best technology and approaches in the most effective locations. Cities will be able to target their resources at the most valuable sites. Currently, municipalities have a number of options of stormwter technologies and approaches. They can construct traditional, or grey, stormwater infrastructure, such as pipes and deep tunnels; or they can develop ``green infrastructure'' technologies and approaches, such as swales, green roofs, and rain gardens. These green infrastructure approaches actually result in less stormwater entering the traditional stormwater system, through the use of infiltration and evapo- transpiration technologies. Congresman Polis' amendment will provide municipalities with the means to choose the best mix of technologies and approaches for their distinctive localities. This comprehensive approach will result in better water quality at lower cost. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Developing effective response to storm water is the purpose of this amendment. It incorporates green infrastructure technologies and approaches into developing municipal stormwater systems. I urge support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?